Baracks self assesment

It's a cbo report it is online go right to the primary source... The number went down 5o billion since last year not up so nice prediction... And the whole deal still takes away from the deficit not adds but again that gets complicated ... You have already backed off 600 billion since yesterday's sky is falling post but you still keep trying to push it, turn off the savage and the fox... Your too smart and passionate to let them continually use you

How do you feel about that source... Leading you to post garbage I wouldnt ever listen to them again. Ant it isn't 940 vs 1.1 as you can clearly understan he never said 940 for the years 2012-2022... so stop talking while you are just an unwitting dupe and not a liar.

Once again Dave gets sucked in by fake news sources and reposts the stuff on the internet like it is a fact.. it fits his world view so he doesnt fact check it.. cause he just couldnt wait to gloat about it. Sad part is other people read it and think it is true and never come back to see it is simply and truely wrong.

From the actual CBO report..

"CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012–2021 period—about $50 billion less than the agencies’ March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period"

In Short the costs havent risen from 900 billion to 1.76 trillion.   That is an apples of hand grenades comparison of the net cost of the years 2010 to 2020 (originally estimated at 900 million) to the gross cost of years 2012 through 2022. Only a very biased source trying to support predefined views would put together such a comparison.

If you really wanted to compare the net cost estimates of 2010-2020 to the net cost estimates of 2012-2022 then you would be comparing the original 940 billion estimates to just under 1.1 trillion which wouldnt shock anyone (besides the fact that it is down 50 billion from last year due to lower health care usage rates in the last two years). However because the current estimate covers a ten year period that is two years later in time and we knew the effects of the bill wouldnt be phased in between 2010 and 2012 anyway it would be a stretch to make even that much closer comparison. There is no legitimate reason to round down the 940 million net number from two years ago and put it in the same sentence as the 1.76 gross number from this year, except to purposefully mislead your audience.


None of this actually covers the effect of the legislation on the deficit.. which would of course show that the spending in the Affordable Care Act is actually lower than the projected healthcare spending by the federal government would have been without its reforms. Which was at last count a hundred billion dollars over ten years.

Now the news is not all good from the cbo this year as it seems that 2 million fewer people than previously estimated would not be saved from a life of no insurance by this bill but conservatives should actually be happy about that.

WOW, that plan for the economy has really grown legs! My retirement investments have recovered and grown. A nice development after the dismal 8 years when I was really worried.

I was saying at the time of Of the votes on Obama care that it would add to the deficit, ant the real costs would climb just like medicare has. Well today the CBO came up with their revised cost estimate. Remember Barack said it would be budget neutral at 940 billion for the first decade. The new projected cost is 1.76 trillion for the first decade, nearly double and climbing before it is even initiated. That is 840 billion going onto the deficit. The inflation rate of medical care that we could not afford as a nation is now increasing instead of decreasing. We were sold a bill of goods by a fraudulent trickster. Wish I would have been wrong on this one, I just cannot afford myself being right anymore.

JoeinNY wrote: Dave... whereever you get your information from stop - they are not doing you any good as every "fact" you post ain't one. The presidents 2013 budget does not increase the deficit over 2012, it lowers it 400 billion dollars. The projected increase in government revenue is not due to increased tax rates but rather economic growth increasing revenue as it has been known to do. Obama so far has been a failure in doing what the country in overwhelming numbers elected him to do - raise taxes. That is the big campaign process he has failed to produce on. Of course he could not have predicted citizens united would allow a very few misguided people in the country to have such a pervasive voice that they could make up a "movement" and put people in congress that would rather destroy the economy than allow failed tax cuts to be sunsetted. We spend more on paying interest on Bush's debt than we do on unemployment every year. That transportation money you decry that is going to light rail is an order of magnitude smaller than the amount government subsides the fossil fuels that go into your truck.. so dont feel so left out. All the benefits you espouse of the 15% tax rate on investments would be there if you made that rate only apply to the first 250k or so and rise from there... like obama is proposing so apparently you agree with his solution? We played for the last 10 years on the credit card, wars, tax cuts, big times... someone needs to pay for it. Makes sense to me that it be those who benefitted from the last 10 years and not the next 10 generations.

Sorry Joe, but I stand by my facts, just because you do not like them does not make them wrong. I was talking 2011 numbers vs. 2012. (Now that we finally have some.) The deficit increases from 1.3 trillion to 1.327 trillion.

My comment on revenue increase did not suggest a reason, only the projected increase, and that there is an increase in revenue, so it is not a cut in revenue causing the deficit. it is projected to rise, just not as fast as spending.

Concerning interest on debt, bushes 8 year debt was about 2.5 trillion, Obama's first 4 years will be 4 trillion, why are you only concerned about the interest on bushes debt? I am worried about both. That's why we need to curb spending now.

Government is a net receiver from fossil fuel taxes, there have historically been reduced rates to encourage energy production, because fuels are the lubricant of our economic engine. I always understood a subsidy to be giving someone money which is not the case. When I get a tax return which is percentage of what I pay in, is that a subsidy? when the big mack is on sale is that a subsidy? I don't see it that way. I do see fuel prices up by 60% +, which is an effective tax on me based on Obama's energy policy.

The transportation bill is expanding to include not only money to build light rail but also to subsidize (yes give money to) its operations. along with a $10,000 government tax credit to try to get people too buy Obama s government motors volt that no one wants. That yours and my money just so he can say what a good job he did turning around the car industry. I could sell a lot of floors if the givernment would plunk down a few grand a piece for each. Why do I have to pay for the government to pick winners and losers?

All of the benefits of the 15% tax rate would still apply to those under 250,000 if a cut off was in place, but they would no longer apply to those above which would change investment habits, likely driving down stock prices for those in the 250,000 under group, so I do not agree. It is wrong to impose additional burdens to any given minority group.

The government played for the last 10 years on credit cards, let them make some cuts to pay for it. While collections have hovered between 2.1 and 2.5 trillion for the last ten years, the federal budget doubled from 1.8 trillion in 2000 to 3.6 trillion in 2010. That is doubled in ten years. Spending is very obviously the problem. Arguing about who pays for taxes is like re-arranging deck chairs on the titanic. We need to plug the leak first, then when we know we can stay afloat we can talk about how we will pay for the damage.

True but I never said anything about breaking the law. Come on rich people don't want to pay anymore in taxes than the rest of us. They will donate , invest, etc. to save paying uncle sam.

dockhockey.........but........they wont break the law, they sign their name to those returns,

He must not be hiding it very well, you seem to know all about it. It is your responsibility to relate the details to the IRS. Maybe you could share them with us as well.[/QUOTE]

yeah it's under his bed

Dave... whereever you get your information from stop - they are not doing you any good as every "fact" you post ain't one.

The presidents 2013 budget does not increase the deficit over 2012, it lowers it 400 billion dollars.

The projected increase in government revenue is not due to increased tax rates but rather economic growth increasing revenue as it has been known to do. Obama so far has been a failure in doing what the country in overwhelming numbers elected him to do - raise taxes. That is the big campaign process he has failed to produce on. Of course he could not have predicted citizens united would allow a very few misguided people in the country to have such a pervasive voice that they could make up a "movement" and put people in congress that would rather destroy the economy than allow failed tax cuts to be sunsetted.

We spend more on paying interest on Bush's debt than we do on unemployment every year.

That transportation money you decry that is going to light rail is an order of magnitude smaller than the amount government subsides the fossil fuels that go into your truck.. so dont feel so left out.

All the benefits you espouse of the 15% tax rate on investments would be there if you made that rate only apply to the first 250k or so and rise from there... like obama is proposing so apparently you agree with his solution?

We played for the last 10 years on the credit card, wars, tax cuts, big times... someone needs to pay for it. Makes sense to me that it be those who benefitted from the last 10 years and not the next 10 generations.

dochockey wrote: Anybody making lets just say over 25 million a year is going to have the best tax attorneys / accountants doing everything they can to hide money from taxation no matter what their tax % is. Don't let Zucker fool ya he's hiding plenty !

He must not be hiding it very well, you seem to know all about it. It is your responsibility to relate the details to the IRS. Maybe you could share them with us as well.

Anybody making lets just say over 25 million a year is going to have the best tax attorneys / accountants doing everything they can to hide money from taxation no matter what their tax % is. Don't let Zucker fool ya he's hiding plenty !

ononewheel wrote: Yeah, read the budget, it is no secret. It is larger than the last, surprise. Not really, it almost always is bigger than the last year, for all budgets. Lots of new spending on infrastructure too. That helps you get that wood for the floors you put down to the job site, and gets the "$800" a week unemployment checks to stop. Too bad the max per week is $363.00, still spinning? It might be hard to stop this train from rolling through. Just cutting the spending is just half of the problem. You need to raise the income as well and why you continue to stump for the richies while you cannot spend like you used to amazes me. They have the money, but they are not putting the wood down to help you. Get another second job to put more floors down when they are not spending it? I give you credit, being on your knees is tough stuff. I couldn't do it, and props to you. I was a mason for years before joining the Marines, and I can almost feel that pain right now. By the way the war spending is not over, and it costs more each year, even with less troops for less "work". One thing I'd like to hear, how much more should we tax those getting the unemployment checks and at the bottom of the income? By the way, unemployment is insurance and it is taxed too.

Seth, the budget getting bigger each year makes my point about the spending problem, even when we are broke we grow government at the expense of the private sector and our children.

Sadly in my state the transportation money is mostly going to light rail, Have you ever tried to get a pickup load of tools in one of those things before the doors close, and then they don't go within ten blocks of where I am working. The jobs are going to the commercial union guys who had not really slowed much, it is doing nothing for the housing industry.

The rich are the only ones spending on floors right now. Construction is on sale and it is the only place they can spend with any predictability. I have worked on about one starter home a year for the last three, but I have worked on a ton of million to multimillion dollar homes. Thank God for trickle down economics.

We should not be taxing the unemployed, nor should we be paying them for 2 years to be idle. The mandate by the federal government to pay out for 2 years instead of 9 weeks has driven my employers "insurance" costs from .8% of payroll to 8%, that is over 7% increase on the cost of current labor and new hires. Business has so much of their resources tied up paying people not to work that they cannot afford to hire people to work. This is one of the many reasons that the recovery is so slow. Thanks big government.

Yeah, read the budget, it is no secret. It is larger than the last, surprise. Not really, it almost always is bigger than the last year, for all budgets.

Lots of new spending on infrastructure too. That helps you get that wood for the floors you put down to the job site, and gets the "$800" a week unemployment checks to stop. Too bad the max per week is $363.00, still spinning?

It might be hard to stop this train from rolling through.

Just cutting the spending is just half of the problem. You need to raise the income as well and why you continue to stump for the richies while you cannot spend like you used to amazes me. They have the money, but they are not putting the wood down to help you. Get another second job to put more floors down when they are not spending it?


I give you credit, being on your knees is tough stuff. I couldn't do it, and props to you. I was a mason for years before joining the Marines, and I can almost feel that pain right now.

By the way the war spending is not over, and it costs more each year, even with less troops for less "work".

One thing I'd like to hear, how much more should we tax those getting the unemployment checks and at the bottom of the income? By the way, unemployment is insurance and it is taxed too.

When they do well, they take the money and run